Candidates should be offering entitlement solutions

The presidential candidates should stop ducking the looming Social Security and Medicare deficits.

They have been talking about race, experience, change and other subjects that ignore the two giant elephants in the room.

Social Security and Medicare trustees just issued their annual warning that the programs are heading toward devastating shortfalls.

That's something the candidates should be talking about rather than inventing stories about dodging bullets or making excuses for bigoted remarks.

It has been known for years that these two entitlement programs could never carry the weight of the baby boomers when they start to retire.

Approximately 76 million American children were born between 1946 and 1964 during the baby boom population bubble. Now, it is estimated that 28 percent of the U.S. population are boomers between the ages of 44 and 63.

In only two years, the Social Security surpluses that Congress has been borrowing will start to shrink. In only nine years, Social Security will start paying out more than it receives in revenue. By 2017, the surplus will disappear and the nation's deficit will shoot upward because Congress will not have an estimated $80 billion to spend.

By 2041, without legislation to fix the Social Security funding shortfall, about $300 billion will have to be taken out of the general fund. Recipients could expect a 25 percent reduction in their benefits and taxpayers could expect spending cuts, new taxes or a even bigger deficits and more national debt.

The funding problems with Social Security are a breeze compared to the Medicare funding problems.

According to the trustees, legislation is needed immediately to either increase the payroll tax by 122 percent or slash program outlays by 51 percent to bring Medicare into balance. As required by the Medicare prescription drug law passed in 2003, the trustees must issue a fund warning when general tax revenues are needed to cover more than 45 percent of Medicare's costs over a projected seven-year period.

When a funding warning is issued, the president is required to propose legislation to restrain Medicare spending. That warning now has been issued three years in a row. Bush's latest response was legislation to set higher premiums for higher-income seniors, but Congress has been loath to act on any legislation that would bring spending in line with revenues.

The three major presidential candidates all promise to maintain the solvency of the programs, but they avoid spelling out solutions.

As president, Hillary Clinton has said that she would not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or create private accounts as Bush proposed in 2005, which is good news for seniors. All the candidates would like to maintain the current level of benefits, but none is willing to offer specific solutions.

It would be nice to know how they will maintain the solvency of these programs before the eventual winner moves into the White House.